Re: perversity squared

[Rick Nylander <rnylander@DTSI.COM>]

Lojbab to Rick to lojbab:
>>Lojbab wrote:
>>>Indeed the decision to baseline the place structures AT ALL, took
place
>>>over my objection.  My intent was that the semantics should be
totally
>>>fluid.  the reality is that the place structures as is constrain the
>>>meanings of the words.
>>
[snip]
>>It would seem that any language, and in particular lojban, which has
>>some kind of ordering defined (e.g. subject-verb-object, or X1 broda
X2
>>X3) has to start with some agreement as to ordering of components and
>>what those components mean in a given order (e.g. hitter hits hittee),
>>or communication is impossible.
>
>Yes and no.  Certainly the ordering of components and their number for
that
>matter have been defined and indeed baselined in Lojban.  What those
>components actually mean is necssarily vague to some extent (insert
Cowan's
>maxim about infinite verbosity being the price otherwise).

[mega-snip]

I'm glad that you gave the _short_ summary :-)

What attracted my attention was, specifically, your statement about not
wanting to baseline the place structures AT ALL (your emphasis).

Here's what I think you meant in your original statement:  You did not
want to _baseline_ the place structures - meaning you did not want to
set them in stone.  But you did agree that the intended place structures
be documented so that everyone could agree, roughly, on how places would
be used.  Your fear was that putting the label "baseline" on the
documentation fixed them in a form that precluded the kind evolution and
refinement you describe.  You wanted to leave the meanings of the places
sufficiently vague to encourage said refinement toward uniquely lojbanic
meanings.

Rik.